Post counts vs. $$

[ckimmerle]

A recent thread saw at least one user personally belittle another user, using post counts as one point of attack. That argument, boys and girls, is ridiculous, especially on this site. Take me, for example, I don't have many posts, yet somehow still managed to spend hundreds of dollars on LL contributing not only to the site's expenses, but also to the endowment fund as well as, I am sure, a small amount for those that run this site. I venture to guess that I may have spent more here than many forum members with much higher post counts.

Post counts don't pay the bills, dollar bills pay the bills. Please consider this next time you (in general) read a post from a member who doesn't post much.

Chuck

[Rob C]

Can´t say I take any notice of posting frequency - my attention is usually on the content of the thing. But yes, you do have a point, and at the risk of having this thread wound up too, I think it a very poor show to attempt to belittle people in such manner. In fact, I think it is not really acceptable for anyone to get personal like that here; we seem to be a generally sane collection of varied minds - let´s stay cool and not blow it.

Rob C

[Christopher Sanderson]

...you do have a point, and at the risk of having this thread wound up too, I think it a very poor show to attempt to belittle people in such manner...

You may find Tim O'Reilly's Draft Bloggers Code of Conduct of interest and its update. Basically when a thread gets down to name-calling, it is time to close it. Of course someone can always choose to re-open the discussion in a new thread    

Chris

[Schewe]

A recent thread saw at least one user personally belittle another user, using post counts as one point of attack.

I was pointing out that somebody with very little involvement and contribution to the site was complaining that the site was "boring". I found it ironic. Personally, I would have no idea how one COULD equate post count to monetary expenditures...perhaps Mike and Chris could (I doubt they have). I would also question whether money being spent on products automatically being considered "support" for the site. That implies that the products purchased have no or little actual value. It's not like the stuff LuLa sells is a tax free donation to the site. They are designed to be valuable products...

[jani]

You may find Tim O'Reilly's Draft Bloggers Code of Conduct of interest and its update. Basically when a thread gets down to name-calling, it is time to close it. Of course someone can always choose to re-open the discussion in a new thread  

I can also recommend this piece on netnews etiquette (netiquette)... from 1988:

Dear Emily Postnews

From how people behave around blogs and web forums, you'd almost think they were invented yesteryear.

[ckimmerle]

I would also question whether money being spent on products automatically being considered "support" for the site. That implies that the products purchased have no or little actual value.

<sigh> Much, if not most, of the information contained on LL can be obtained elsewhere (though perhaps not done as well): other websites, books, videos, magazines, associations, tutorials, etc. Despite these options, those of us who purchase items on LL do so as we find value in this site (as well as in the products) and want the proceeds from our purchases to go towards ensuring LL's future. That, my friend, is the textbook definition of "support".

Reply if you must, but I'm done.

Chuck